The Michigan Department of Attorney General utilizes the services of Special Assistant Attorneys General from time to time when the unique circumstances of a particular case create the need for specialized services not currently available within the department.
The Michigan Attorney General has determined that a full and complete investigation of what happened within the Catholic Church is required. This investigation is and will continue to be independent, thorough, transparent, and prompt. My department and this investigation will find out who knew what, and when.
The Conviction Integrity Unit (the “CIU”) investigates claims of innocence to determine whether there is clear and convincing new evidence that the convicted defendant was not the person who committed the offense.
In Michigan, a victim is an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.
The laws regarding expungement of criminal offenses in Michigan changed in major ways in April of 2021. This page is designed to help applicants navigate their way through the new laws, help them determine if they are eligible to have convictions expunged, to answer frequently asked questions about the new laws, and to provide links for resources and assistance.
To investigate and prosecute hate crimes by following up on every credible tip and offer departmental resources to assist local and federal law enforcement partners in this effort.
The Michigan Attorney General is leading the fight against this horrific crime by prosecuting the state's first-ever criminal cases under state law banning human trafficking in Michigan. Victims of human trafficking are in bondage through force, fraud or coercion, for the purpose of sex or labor exploitation.
Knowing how to guard your personal information is your first line of defense against identity theft.
Michigan Attorney General's robocall initiative is leading several efforts to protect Michigan residents from the billion plus robocalls made to them every year.
Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq, provides that requesters can receive copies or make inspections of most public records of public bodies upon written request.
The Open Meetings Act (OMA) took effect January 1, 1977. In enacting the OMA, the Legislature promoted a new era in governmental accountability and fostered openness in government to enhance responsible decision making.1 Nothing in the OMA prohibits a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision that requires a greater degree of openness relative to public body meetings than the standards provided for in the OMA. 2
Search is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
The web Browser you are currently using is unsupported, and some features of this site may not work as intended. Please update to a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox or Edge to experience all features Michigan.gov has to offer.
July 25, 2025
LANSING – Today, the Michigan Department of Attorney General announced it has concluded the review of the February 12th, 2025, officer-involved shooting death of Mark Ryan, 52, of Port Huron, without issuing charges against the Michigan State Police Trooper who fatally shot Ryan, finding they acted in self-defense. It is the policy of the Michigan State Police (MSP) to send all officer involved shootings to the Department of Attorney General for review.
On February 12th, 2025, MSP Troopers and St. Clair County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a Port Huron home following a 9-1-1 call wherein the caller claimed Mark Ryan was intoxicated, that he intended to take his own life, and that he wanted someone to shoot him. Upon arrival, officers observed shouting from inside the home, and one resident informed officers Mr. Ryan was armed with a BB pistol. Two residents were escorted out of the home and into police vehicles for their own safety. Mr. Ryan exited the home at this time, carrying a pistol in his right hand. Officers on-scene were not able to readily discern whether the pistol was a BB gun or a real firearm. The weapon was visually indistinguishable as such and did not bear an orange barrel tip typically indicative of a BB gun.
Mr. Ryan did not respond to commands to drop the weapon, and returned inside the home and remerged multiple times. Ryan exited the home once more and again refused to respond to or comply with orders to drop the weapon. Officers attempted to de-escalate the situation, telling him they did not “want to shoot you,” to which Ryan responded “how about I want you too?” Ryan descended the porch steps and walked toward officers, ignoring at least eight orders from Troopers to stop walking toward them. Ryan continued toward officers and verbally threatened to shoot them.
Ryan started walking directly toward one Trooper, while carrying his pistol in his right hand with his arms raised to shoulder height. The Trooper retreated several steps backward, and once again ordered Ryan to stop walking, warning that he would shoot Ryan if he did not halt. Ryan continued toward the Trooper, who fired three shots, striking and killing Mark Ryan.
Under MSP policy, all officer-involved shootings are first assigned to investigators from a different district than where the incident occurred. This investigation was conducted by the MSP 2nd District who then referred to matter the Department of Attorney General.
Attorneys at the Department of Attorney General reviewed MSP reports, signed statements from MSP Troopers on-scene, audio recording of St. Clair County 9-1-1 call, St. Clair County Medical Examiner autopsy report, video footage from patrol car and body-worn cameras of MSP Troopers and vehicles and those of St. Clair County Sheriff’s Deputies, a scale scene diagram, cell phone videos captured by witnesses, and other material.
The legal issue in this case was whether the MSP Trooper acted in a legal manner during their interaction with Ryan when they used deadly force by discharging their weapon. Law enforcement officers have the same privilege of self-defense as anyone else. Shooting a gun in self-defense requires an honest and reasonable belief that an officer is in danger of being killed or seriously injured. If that person’s belief was honest and reasonable, they can act immediately to defend themselves. An officer’s decision about the level of force necessary to control an individual will be based on the officer’s perception of the threat and the subject’s apparent ability to carry out that threat. Furthermore, this Department is prohibited by law from issuing criminal charges in cases where it cannot prove the use of deadly force to be unjustified.
Here, under all of the facts and circumstances presented, the Department concluded the MSP Trooper acted in self-defense and did not act in a manner that would substantiate criminal charges.
The Department of Attorney General is available to lead or support any investigation of an officer-involved shooting at the request of any county prosecutor or law enforcement agency within the state and today renews this commitment and offer.
The full report prepared by the Department of Attorney General assessing the laws applicable to this incident can be reviewed here (PDF).
###
Media Contact:
Coalition of Attorneys General Urges Congress to Pass SAFER Banking Act to Improve Public Safety and Enable Better Tax Collection and Regulatory Oversight